Austin Debate, Deboned (Updated, Again)

So I was at the big debate last night. Here's what I saw, on the security issues:

IRAQ. In my mind, none of the candidates have yet to answer the "so what?" question on Iraq. What happens when we draw down? Obama says that he will "have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months" while he engages in a regional diplomatic effort to insure Iraq's future stability. What happens if that effort fails and what happens if Iraq descends back into chaos? Hillary mirrors Obamastating that she would direct the drafting of a "viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration". Again, where is Plan B? And why isn't anybody asking?

BORDER SECURITY. Both have similar opinion even though in tonight's debate it seemed as if they voted for border security before they voted against it. According to Clinton: "Well, I think both
Senator Obama and I voted for that as part of the immigration debate...And having been along the border for the last week or so in fact, last night I was at the University of Texas at Brownsville and this is how absurd this has become under the Bush administration.
Because, you know, there is a smart way to protect our borders, and there is a dumb way to protect our borders."

Isn't that a lot like Kerry's logic on voting for Iraq? And weren't issue like land owners being cut off from their property and water access knowable before the vote? Again, no questions from the moderators. Of course, Boeing's stock might jump tomorrow with all the talk about building the virtual fence.

__AFGHANISTAN. __Obama had some interesting things to say here: "You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon -- supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief."

Not having enough men to fill your rifle platoon because of Iraq is something that sounds like it could happen. But, I find the idea of American soldiers being forced to use Taliban weapons dubious. Using captured weapons to equip Afghani allies happens, but, otherwise, I doubt our supplies lines are stretched that thin. I wonder who Obama was talking to and in what context? [The campaign seems to be walking this one back already -- ed.]

At the end of tonight, the pundits, the bloggers, and the talking heads will spent a great deal of energy handicapping who won. It began in the press room shortly after the end. The writer for the Huffington Post who I sat next to kept asking "Was that a draw? Looks like a draw to me? Right?" And thus the Hillary/Obama horse race continues. What I'd like to see is more people handicapping the questions. Or, more importantly, how about a debate devoted entirely to the war? Health care and the economy will take the entire government to sort out, but the war rests on the shoulders of one man...or woman.

On a personal note, it was tremendously interesting covering the debate as an, ahem, member of the press. I shared the room with bloggers, heavy hitters from the national media, and even the guy from the Llano TX (pop 3,327) newspaper. We were all squeezed on to the same tiny tables regardless of our status so it was interesting to watch the likes of Kate Snow cram herself into the same space as the rest of us.

After the debate, I had access to the "spin room" where all the candidates' representatives talked to the reporters. It was bedlam as everybody tried to get access. Even, comedian George Lopez was there, and he had cameras swarming around him which kind of cracked me up. I just stood in the corner watching the chaos and smirking. I was thinking thank goodness for two things: that this isn't my day job and that David Gergen's bald spot is bigger than mine.

UPDATE: Iraq vet Phil Carter - who's now doing some work for the Obama campaign - says he "talked this morning with two friends who led rifle platoons in
Afghanistan. Both confirmed to me that they did, at times, use captured or found weapons or ammunition."

One relayed the story of mounting a
Soviet 12.7mm heavy machine gun (the equivalent of a U.S. .50 caliber machine gun) on his HMMWV because it was too difficult to get the spare parts needed to fix their G.I. (government issue) .50 cal. Another told me his platoon carried AKs anytime they patrolled with their Afghan counterparts, and that it was always much easier to get 7.62mm ammo for the AKs than to go through the U.S. bureaucracy for ammunition requisition. These stories are timeless; you'll see similar ones in the narratives from WWII, Korea and Vietnam vets too. Anyone who's dealt with the Army supply system – particularly at the pointy end of the spear – ought to be able to sympathize.

As an adviser to the Iraqi police, I sometimes carried non-standard weapons, including an Iraqi police Glock 9mm pistol and an AK47 that had been handed down from the previous adviser team. Early in my tour, my M9 Beretta broke; the armorer could neither fix it, nor figure out how to replace a reserve-component weapon, so I carried the Glock instead. I preferred the U.S. weapons because I had a lot more experience with them, and confidence in my ability to use them. But as an adviser, it was important to show solidarity with my Iraqi brethren, and one way to do that was to carry the same weapons they did. I saw other advisers to the Iraqi army and police doing this too, as well as a few conventional units that were partnered with Iraqi units.

UPDATE #2: ABC's Jack Tapper -- widely known as a McCainiac during the 2000 campaign -- confirms the story:

*I called the Obama campaign this morning to chat about this story, and was put in touch with the Army captain in question. *

*He told me his story, which I found quite credible, though for obvious reasons he asked that I not mention his name or certain identifying information. *

Short answer: He backs up Obama's story.

The longer answer is worth telling, though.

*The Army captain, a West Point graduate, did a tour in a hot area of eastern Afghanistan from the Summer of 2003 through Spring 2004. *

*Prior to deployment the Captain -- then a Lieutenant -- took command of a rifle platoon at Fort Drum. When he took command, the platoon had
39 members, but -- in ones and twos -- 15 members of the platoon were re-assigned to other units. He knows of 10 of those 15 for sure who went to Iraq, and he suspects the other five did as well. *

*The platoon was sent to Afghanistan with 24 men. *

"We should have deployed with 39," he told me, "we should have gotten replacements. But we didn't. And that was pretty consistent across the battalion."

He adds that maybe a half-dozen of the 15 were replaced by the Fall of 2003, months after they arrived in Afghanistan, but never all 15.

As for the weapons and humvees, there are two distinct periods in this, as he explains -- before deployment, and afterwards.

*At Fort Drum, in training, "we didn't have access to heavy weapons or the ammunition for the weapons, or humvees to train before we deployed." *

*What ammunition? *

40 mm automatic grenade launcher ammunition for the MK-19, and ammunition for the .50 caliber M-2 machine gun ("50 cal.")

"We weren't able to train in the way we needed to train," he says.
When the platoon got to Afghanistan they had three days to learn.

They also didn't have the humvees they were supposed to have both before deployment and once they were in Afghanistan, the Captain says.

"We should have had 4 up-armored humvees," he said. "We were supposed to. But at most we had three operable humvees, and it was usually just two."

So what did they do? "To get the rest of the platoon to the fight," he says, "we would use Toyota Hilux pickup trucks or unarmored flatbed humvees." Sometimes with sandbags, sometimes without.

Also in Afghanistan they had issues getting parts for their MK-19s and their 50-cals. Getting parts or ammunition for their standard rifles was not a problem.

"It was very difficult to get any parts in theater," he says,
"because parts are prioritized to the theater where they were needed most -- so they were going to Iraq not Afghanistan."

"The purpose of going after the Taliban was not to get their weapons," he said, but on occasion they used Taliban weapons. Sometimes
AK-47s, and they also mounted a Soviet-model DShK (or "Dishka") on one of their humvees instead of their 50 cal.